Rarewala: A Punjabi-loving gentleman-aristocratRoopinder Singh
Gian Singh Rarewala has left a lasting impression on the region. Soft-spoken and suave, his was a multi-faceted personality. We still feel the beneficial effects of the decisions taken by a man who was born on this day a century ago.
What most people remember about him is that he was ever able to relate
to a wide spectrum of society despite his aristocratic upbringing.

Jinnah’s role in Partition of India: A reappraisalP. K. Ravindranath
While conventional wisdom and perceived understanding of history has it that almost all the principal actors on the political stage, except Mahatma Gandhi, in the late 1940s were responsible for dividing India, Dr Rafiq Zakaria seeks to shift the focus on to a single individual — Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

Saving history from distortionSatish K. Kapoor
Whatever the praxis of historical interpretation, the prime facts of history remain incontrovertible. None, for example, would dispute that Kalachuris were known as
Haihayas; Don Francisco di Almedia was the first Portuguese Viceroy of the Portuguese possessions in the East or that the Jallianwala Bagh carnage took place on April 13, 1919.

It’s perversion, not policyAbu Abraham
A recent edition of the riveting programme, The Big Fight, on the Star News television channel was a revealing experience. The subject was the communalisation of education. One of the participants was Dr Rajput, Director of the
NCERT, whose task was to defend the recent moves of the HRD ministry to tailor some of the school history textbooks to fit the philosophy and outlook of the Sangh Parivar.

PROFILE

Harihar SwarupVisible face of Kabul’s
new dispensation
Dr Abdullah Abdullah has been the true voice of the Northern Alliance since the group took up cudgels against the Taliban. For five long years the Alliance had been losing battle after battle and the life was tough, unsettled for him. A professional medical man, a trained doctor, Abdullah had become a solider too and, at the same time, nursed the wounded and remained a unifying figure among the ethnic minority that constitute the Alliance.

DELHI
DURBAR

Terrorist attack doesn’t change politiciansThe camaraderie and unity shown by the members of various political parties on the day the terrorists attacked Parliament was
shortlived. Soon after the attack, word spread that the passage of the controversial law on prevention of terrorism was only a formality.

No dividing lines

Hopeful Mamata

False alarm

Busy cop

Blackwill’s gesture

Army’s hospitality

Making up

Acknowledgement

DIVERSITIES — DELHI
LETTER

Humra QuraishiTension in air after firing in ParliamentThere is apparent tension in the air after the attack in Parliament House complex. It took a while for Delhiites to absorb the shock. Though security has been tightened at all the key areas, unease is definitely
there.

Gian Singh Rarewala has left a lasting impression on the region. Soft-spoken and suave, his was a multi-faceted personality. We still feel the beneficial effects of the decisions taken by a man who was born on this day a century ago.

What most people remember about him is that he was ever able to relate to a wide spectrum of society despite his aristocratic upbringing.

Born on December 16, 1901, in the Rara village, a descendant of Ratan Singh Bhangu, the author of “Panth Prakash”, Gian Singh studied in Patiala (graduated from Mahindra College) and joined the judicial service of the Patiala state. He soon rose to become a judge of the Patiala State High Court. He also served as a Revenue Commissioner and Revenue Minister of the state and was Prime Minister of Patiala during the most crucial period —1946-47 — and was both Prime Minister and Chief Minster of Pepsu (Patiala and East Punjab States Union) et al.

More than the positions he held, his most significant contribution was the crucial role he played in raising the status of Punjabi as a language.

During his tenure as Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, and President of the Singh Sabha, in 1944, he invited Maharaja Yadavindra Singh to the Singh Sabha and requested him to adopt Punjabi as the official language of the state.

The Maharaja declared that he would do so, and Gian Singh took a scant 10 months preparation to make Punjabi a state language. He made it the medium of instruction, the administrative language, and the judicial language along with English. This proved to be the beginning that allowed more work to be done in promoting Punjabi.

Even as Prime Minister of Pepsu, Gian Singh kept the departments of Punjabi and Backward Classes under his charge. Being in-charge of Finance, he presented the Pepsu Budget of 1948-49 and 1949-50 in Punjabi. It was distributed on cyclostyled sheets because it could not be printed properly at that time. More than 600 new terms were coined in Punjabi for the Budget.

As much as Rs 3 lakh were allocated to the Punjabi Department to develop and print textbooks and other necessary publications. An order of Rs 1 lakh was placed with the Remington typewriter company to develop and deliver Punjabi typewriters. Special efforts were made to introduce Punjabi stenography for official use. Instructions were sent out to use Punjabi as the official language of communications in all state departments.

This zeal for developing and spreading Punjabi had become a passion of his life. Gian Singh came up with the
principle of geographical contiguity for determining the language of the area rather than religion through a circular of the Education Department on August 24, 1949. This is what we call the Pepsu Formula, seen as a precursor of the Regional Formula adopted later.

Gian Singh implemented the Pepsu Formula with the active support of the then Deputy Prime Minister Vallabhbhai Patel and Secretary, States, V. P. Menon, which precluded any kind of opposition or ill-conceived agitation that so bedevilled the implementation of Punjabi as the state language in Punjab.

On July 15, 1948, Pepsu was formed. It was headed by Maharaja Yadavindra Singh, who was the Rajpramukh and Maharaja Jagatjit Singh of Kapurthala, who was the Deputy Rajpramukh. Pepsu itself comprised the then princely states of Patiala, Nabha, Kapurthala, Faridkot, Jind, Malerkotla, Nalagarh and Kalsia. The hilly areas of Kasauli, Kandaghat, Dharampur and Chail were also part of Pepsu.

Gian Singh served as Pepsu’s Premier from November, 1949, to May 1951. This was while he was still in the service of Patiala state. Later, he joined active politics and contested in the 1951 polls. He was elected to the Pepsu Assembly from Payal constituency as an independent candidate. Heading the United Front Ministry, he became the first non-Congress Chief Minister of any state and also played a significant role in the successful experiment in coalition politics.

He was Chief Minister of Pepsu from April, 1952, to March, 1953, when President’s rule was imposed and his government was dismissed. During this time, he showed his mettle by providing leadership, political as well as administrative, to the people, though a non-Congress government was obviously an irritant to the Centre. Following midterm polls, he could not form a government and became the Leader of Opposition in 1954.

Gian Singh had been nominated member of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) for a
while. He became president of the SGPC in 1955. During the time, a morcha for Punjabi Suba was observed as a protest against the entry of police personnel into the Golden Temple complex and most of the Akali leaders had courted arrest. He, too, had gone to court arrest, though his presence acted as a catalyst and the government gave in to the demands of the protesters and lifted the orders banning assembly of people and shouting of slogans. In 1956, he and five others, including Master Tara Singh, signed an agreement with Jawaharlal Nehru, giving birth to the Regional Formula (of giving weightage to the language spoken in a region).

After the merger of Pepsu with Punjab, the man who had resisted various inducements to join the Congress, became its member in 1956. Hewas elected to the Punjab Assembly in 1957 on a Congress ticket. He became Irrigation Minister in the Partap Singh Kairon Cabinet.

Gian Singh was elected to the state Assembly in 1962 but was not inducted in the Kairon Cabinet. He won the 1967 election too. He left the Congress (reportedly because of differences with Morarji Desai) and joined the Akali Dal in 1969, an association which he continued till his death on December 31, 1979.

Besides his contribution to the Punjabi language, Gian Singh is also remembered for the crucial role he played as Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, in building a new complex for Gurdwara Dukh Nivaran in Patiala, which reportedly earned him the wrath of the powers that be who transferred him to Narnaul, then a back-of-beyond place, where too he proved to be an effective administrator.

He was also a representative of Patiala in the Constituent Assembly of India which he joined on April 28, 1947. It was during this time that a lot was happening in the region and Gian Singh was in the thick of it, especially in rehabilitating refugees in Patiala. In this he was ably assisted by his wife Manmohan Kaur as well as a band of dedicated volunteers from various aristocratic families and common people and the state machinery. Among the people he worked closely with were Giani Gurdit Singh, President Guru Granth Vidya Kendra, Raja Narinder Singh, Health Minister, Punjab, and Tarlochan Singh, Vice-Chairman, Minorities Commission. He made Patiala the host of many prominent migrants, especially educationists, whom he actively sought and helped. They included Principal Teja Singh, Prof. Ganda Singh historian, Baba Prem Singh Hotimardan, Dr Benarsi Das, Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha and Kirpal Singh Bedar. All were given homes and honourable positions in Patiala.

For many the role that he played in planning a Punjabi university and setting up Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, is memorable. For others, it is building a team of eminent people including Justice Teja Singh, Chief Justice; Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh Rawalpindi, Chairman, Public Service Commission; Mohan Singh, Managing Director, Bank of Patiala; and Baldev Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Patiala (he was Maneka Gandhi’s grandfather) who all contributed to the development of the region.

Gian Singh Rarewala left an impact no matter where he was. In fact, many contemporaries even recall his sartorial elegance and the handsomeness. He spent the first 26 years of his life in an aristocratic environment, enjoying life and studying. He was an administrator for 20 years, he spend 20 years in politics where he served as Chief Minister of Pepsu and Irrigation as well as Power minister. The last 12 years of his life were spent in retirement. Most of this time he was in the company of his daughter, Nirlep Kaur, who had also been active in politics and had been an MP. He was always the epitome of a gentleman-aristocrat, whose administrative skills and integrity are still remembered.

While conventional wisdom and perceived understanding of history has it that almost all the principal actors on the political stage, except Mahatma Gandhi, in the late 1940s were responsible for dividing India, Dr Rafiq Zakaria seeks to shift the focus on to a single individual — Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

In his latest book, “The Man Who Divided India” (Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, Rs 350) he gives a cursory nod of acknowledgement of the truth, by quoting (approvingly) of Dr Ram Manohar Lohia from his “Guilty Men of India’s Partition” (1960). “But the disease of old age and exhaustion had come over this fighting organisation of freedom in its moment of greatest distress”.

Dr Zakaria describes elaborately how Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel deliberately misled Gandhi about the actual implications of the division of India, how Maulana Azad sulked, how Acharya Kripalani, the Congress President sat drowsily and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan barely spoke at the Congress Working Committee meeting that finalised the Partition resolution. And yet, throughout the 276 pages of the book his attempt is to pin the entire blame on Jinnah.

He does mention “Another explanation given in support of Partition is that the Congress did not possess the strength and temperament to cope with the civil war that might have broken out between the Hindus and the Muslims. Gandhi would not have been able to deal with it because of his complete involvement in non-violence. Patel and Nehru could have stood the ground but refused to do so. “They lacked the iron will which, for instance, a leader like Abraham Lincoln possessed. .... he declared that regardless of the price that the north would have to pay, he would not permit the Union to be dismembered.”

Dr Zakaria makes out a case that Jinnah was least suited to assume leadership of Indian Muslims as a whole, and yet in the name of the same Muslims, he forced the Partition on the country to give them a “homeland”.

Jinnah was not a true Muslim — by birth or temperament. Born an Aga Khani Khoja, a Shiite, unacceptable as a true Muslim for the predominant Sunni sects, he did not read Urdu or the Quran; he never prayed, except “as a demonstrative gesture on the occasion of Eid.” He did not fast in Ramadan and he did not perform the Haj. Much later in life, to gain acceptance, among the generality of Muslims, he changed his sect and became an Asnashari.

Dr Zakaria quotes M.C. Chagla to state that Jinnah relished pork sausages and he was far too anglicised to become the sole leader of Indian Muslim masses, with whom he could communicate only in English. And yet, in less than a decade he became their sole leader and spokesman. When admonished by the poet-philosopher, Allama Iqbal for bringing known self-seekers under the protection of the Muslim League, Jinnah ignored it. “To him the poor or the rich, the scrupulous or the unscrupulous, the selfless or the self-centred, were of equal importance; he was in a hurry to become the supreme leader of the Muslims. Towards acquiring that position he was prepared for any compromise or adjustment.”

Fine, but that does not explain how a galaxy of Muslim intellectuals and political leaders across the country crowned him their sole leader and ultimately the Governor-General of the newly created state.

Till the last 30s, Jinnah was hailed as an “embodiment” of Indian unity. “For the Hindus of all political persuasions, Jinnah was the hope for a united India”. He had opposed the formation of the All-India Muslim League in Dacca on December 31, 1906. He organised a countermove in Calcutta at the same time to warn the Muslims not to succumb to the British policy of “divide and rule” which had been endorsed by the newly formed League.

He opposed the League’s demand for separate electorates for Muslims and said it was “a poisonous dose to divide the nation against itself”. He even called the Muslim communalists of his time, “enemies of the nation”.

Dr Zakaria traces how “despite his opposition, Jinnah himself took advantage of the separate electorate and got himself elected to the Viceroy’s Executive Council from the reserved Muslim constituency of Bombay. The voters were carried away by his brilliant advocacy at the bar and his arresting personality”.

Jinnah became the first non-official Muslim to sit on the Viceroy’s Executive Council in 1910. “His three-year term on that body and the lure of Muslim representation gradually drew him away from the purely nationalist mindset to which he had so far adhered and made him turn more to the problems of the community rather than of the country as a whole”. This is the nearest that Dr Zakaria comes in offering a rational explanation of the transformation that came over the “embodiment of Hindu-Muslim unity”.

Even if Jinnah drew inspiration for his two-nation theory from his mentor, Mohammed Iqbal, he rejected the poet’s sane advice to find a way to end the “problem of Muslim poverty... the whole future of the League depends on the party’s activity to solve this question”. Jinnah was mainly interested in building an exclusive platform for himself, Dr Zakaria says. He adds: “And within no time he managed to gather the Muslims under his leadership without changing either his thinking or his approach. His lack of knowledge of Islam and his inability to speak Urdu proved no hindrance. His contempt for the masses remained unchanged... He exploited their religious leanings and inculcated in them the fear of Hindu domination”.

Instead of uniting the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, he created three different entities of Muslims — in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, racially and culturally one but politically divided. As far as Indian Muslims are concerned Dr Zakaria laments: “I am particularly concerned about the millions of Muslims who have been left behind in India and who because of the terrible burden of estrangement and hatred that the Partition had heaped upon them, are unable to lead a normal, peaceful life”.

Once established as an Islamic state, no ruler in the last 50 years has sought to create either a secular or truly Islamic state. “All along the politicians, the bureaucrats and the army commanders who ran the government enjoyed the fruits of power while the people were kept under tight control in the name of fake secularism on the one hand and fostering fanaticism on the other”.

“The Man Who Divided India” makes fascinating reading. It is basically an exposition of Muslim politics of the Gandhian ara, including the Khilafat movement of 1921-22. Dr Zakaria errs in one vital aspect: the Moplah revolt, an off-shoot of the Khilafat movement. Moplahs are not a “sect of Kerala” as Dr Zakaria makes out; they are the Muslims of Malabar region of Kerala. Mopla is also a byword for privileged sons-in-law.

And, they did not refit against the authorities but largely against the landlords, who invariably happened to be high-caste Hindus. It was basically a peasant uprising, which the British dubbed as a communal riot and suppressed it most brutally. Zakaria’s bibliography does not list any of the dozens of studies and books available on this aspect of the only serious Hindu-Muslim clash in Kerala which singularly did not fall for Jinnah’s charms.

Whatever the praxis of historical interpretation, the prime facts of history remain incontrovertible. None, for example, would dispute that Kalachuris were known as Haihayas; Don Francisco di Almedia was the first Portuguese Viceroy of the Portuguese possessions in the East or that the Jallianwala Bagh carnage took place on April 13, 1919. A serious student of history would be naturally irked if factual errors creep in textbooks, more so if they have the stamp of NCERT. Bipin Chandra’s widely read book “Modern India” is a case in point.

When was Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa “the consummation of two thousand years of the spiritual life of three hundred million people” (to borrow Romain Rolland’s expression) born? The date given in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (Sri Ramakrishna Math, Madras) and Life of Sri Ramakrishna (Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta) is 1836 (February 18, 5.15 A.M.). But the book under scrutiny gives it as 1834 (English edition, 1990, Hindi edition, 2000; pages 173 and 181 respectively).

The Ramakrishna Mission (to be distinguished from the Ramakrishna Math) was founded by Swami Vivekananda on May 1, 1897 and it became a registered society in 1909. The Ramakrishna Math was registered as a Trust in 1901. Both the organisations stemmed from the monastic Order of Baranagore (a northern suburb of Calcutta) which was formed soon after the death of Sri Ramakrishna (1886) by his sanyasin disciples headed by Swami Vivekananda. The book not only ignores the Baranagore monastery but also errs in mentioning that the Ramakrishna Mission was founded in 1896. (English edition, page 174; Hindi edition, page 182). Swami Vivekananda had not yet returned from his western tour in 1896.

Many historians have blindly followed the dates in this respect. By the way, another NCERT book (Arjun Dev, Sabhyata ki Kahani), vol. 2, 1990) gives the date of birth of Swami Vivekananda as 1861 although it is well known that he was born on January 12, 1863. The error is not typographical.

Students who have read both Arjun Dev’s and Bipin Chandra’s book mentioned above might feel confused and bewildered after studying about the Theosophical Society which was originally established in the USA by Madam H.P. Blavatsky and Colonel H.S. Olcott. While the former mentions that the headquarters of the Society at Adyar near Madras was founded in 1882 (p.410), the latter advances the date by four years (English edition, page 175). What required to be added for clarity was the fact that the idea of shifting the headquarters to the Madras region was concretised at the annual convention of Theosophists towards the end of December 1852. An estate on the Adyar coast was purchased after this.

Francis Rawdon, Earl of Moira, Marquess of Hastings, popularly called Lord Hastings remained Governor General from 1813 to 1823 not from 1813 to 1822 as mentioned in Bipin Chandra’s book, (English edition, page 57; Hindi edition, page 58). The same mistake is repeated in a subsequent paragraph on the same page (Hindi edition only).

The Anglo-Sikh Treaty of Lahore imposed by Lord Hardinge (1844-1848) on the child Maharaja Duleep Singh was signed on March 9, 1846, not March 8 as mentioned (English edition, page 60; Hindi edition, p. 60).

Some glaring contradictions in the book also need to be pointed out. Lord Dalhousie’s Governor Generalship of India is dated 1848-56 at page 61 (English edition) which is correct, but on page 74 his period is said to have started in 1849. Similarly, the Paramahamsa Mandali is said to have been established in 1849 at one places (page 101) and in 1840 at another (page 173). The first lawful Hindu widow remarriage was celebrated on December 7, 1856 (page 100, column 1). But in a subsequent paragraph (column 2) the counting of widow remarriages is made from 1855.

Many other errors have been noticed. The First Anglo-Afghan War fought during the times of Lord Auckland and Lord Ellenborrough is normally dated from 1839 to 1842 (vide Percival Spear, The Oxford History of Modern India, page 439) but the book (both English and Hindi editions, pages 104 and 109 respectively) gives the date as 1838-42. While discussing the events of the Rising of 1857, the book says (English edition, page 110; Hindi edition, page 116) that “Mangal Pandey, a young soldier was hanged on 29 March 1857”. In fact Mangal Pandey, a sepoy of the 34th N.I. at Barrackpur (near Calcutta) had only been caught after he murdered Sergeant-Major Hughson and wounded Lieutenant Baugh on March 29. He was later tried before a court martial and hanged on April 8, 1857.

The narration of facts relating to the throwing of bombs by Sardar Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt in the Central Legislative Assembly in protest against the passage of Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill is also not correct. While the book says (English edition, page 241; Hindi edition, page 247) that “a bomb” (“Ek Bam” in Hindi) was dropped, the fact is that two bombs were thrown one each by Bhagat Singh and Dutt.

Some irksome errors relate to facts about the history of the Sikhs. Sohan Lal Suri’s Umdat-ut-Tawarikh, a contemporary Persian work, gives February 1805 as the date of the conquest of Amritsar by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Yet the book mentions that the task was accomplished in 1802, (English edition, page 19; Hindi edition, page 20). The chronological sequence of Ranjit Singh’s conquests in the same paragraph is also wrong. It should have been Multan (1818), Kashmir (1819) and Peshawar (1834) and not “Kashmir, Peshawar and Multan”. In an earlier context, the heroic character of Banda Bahadur who carved out a kingdom for the Khalsa, though for a short while, is totally ignored. Banda Bahadur did not utter a groan while being inhumanly tortured by the Mughals he was disgracefully paraded shut in a cage and bound with chains; his eyes were gorged out, his hands and feet cut off, and he was forced to eat the flesh of his own child and ultimately beheaded for refusing to embrace Islam.

Banda Bahadur injected the spirit of self-confidence among the Sikhs paving the way for the ultimate conquest of Punjab by the valiant community. He always attributed his success to the Sikh preceptors and issued forth a coin in the name of Guru Gobind Singh and a state seal bearing the words — “Degh and Tegh are the boons of Guru Nanak — Gobind Singh”. But the book describes him as a religious bigot (English edition, page 19; Hindi edition, page 19).

Surprisingly, the book does not even mention the date of martyrdom of Banda Bahadur (June 9, 1716). It simply says: “He was captured in 1715 and put to death”. The fact of Mughal atrocities “usual with bigots and common among barbarous or half-civilized conquerors” (to use Cunningham’s expression, History of the Sikhs, Chapter 3) on Banda and the captured Sikhs, is not even remotely referred to in the book.

All this is only a tip of the iceberg. Francois Marie Arouet, popularly called Voltaire wrote: “Error flies from mouth to mouth, from pen to pen, and to destroy it takes ages”. It is time the NCERT engaged competent and impartial experts to review its history books so that errors of fact and judgement could be rectified. To save history from distortion and interpolation, it is essential that the interplay between ‘the historian and his facts’ goes on. Historical facts being sacred, let the facts be defended, not the historian.

A
recent edition of the riveting programme, The Big Fight, on the Star News television channel was a revealing experience. The subject was the communalisation of education. One of the participants was Dr Rajput, Director of the NCERT, whose task was to defend the recent moves of the HRD ministry to tailor some of the school history textbooks to fit the philosophy and outlook of the Sangh Parivar. The exercise is known as the ‘Indianisation, nationalisation and spiritualisation’ of school education.

There was a large number of school children, boys and girls, in the audience. What came as a refreshing surprise was the sharpness and maturity of the students in discussing the problem. ‘What’s so great about whether ancient Indians ate beef or not? If they ate beef, so what?’

‘It’s important because it hurts the sentiments of the people.’ was the answer of the NCERT chief. He said he had received thousands of letters from people whose sentiments had been hurt. ‘Is there anyone in the audience whose sentiments have been hurt?’ asked Rajdeep Sardesai, the anchor. There was none.

So there we are. What the Sangh Parivar thinks should be what the nation thinks. Those who don’t think like them are Macaulays, Marxists and people from Madrasas, meaning Christians, Communists and Muslims. And, of course, all three categories eat beef while the Brahminic Sangh Parivar doesn’t. Therefore, it follows that the Sangh and its followers are superior to all the rest and are the only true Indians.

An education policy based on the superiority of the caste Hindu is not a policy but a perversity. Yet that is what we are going to have if public opinion doesn’t rise in time to deflect it. A glorified and uncritical view of Vedic India is what our government is seeking to inculcate in our children. Thus the caste system itself is considered to be beneficial to the people of India. Its oppressiveness is to be ignored, and its evil practices explained away.

The Vedas it would seem, contained all that we need to know, whether in science, philosophy or medicine, and the Vedic people knew these before anyone else in the world. Yet serious historians would say that much of the Indian contribution to world civilisation developed independently of the Vedic corpus, sometimes even in opposition to it. Romila Thapar says: ‘Many advances in knowledge, as for instance in mathematics, astronomy, alchemy and medicine, were the result of centuries of interaction between scholars in various parts of Asia — South, West and East.’

In her book, “Ancient India”, she says beef was served as a mark of honour to special guests and that only in later centuries were Brahmans forbidden to eat it. This reference is sought to be deleted. Another historian, Rajendra Lal Mitra, author of “Indo Aryans”, find no archaeological evidence for the existence of Ram and Krishna. There was no settlement around Ayodhya. Similarly, earliest inscriptions and sculpture found in Mathura between 200 BC and 300 AD did not attest to the presence of Krishna. These references, too, have to be discarded.

What the Sangh Parivar is doing is to blur the distinction between mythology and historical evidence.

Yet, there are important happenings in the country that will make the rewriting of history somewhat insignificant. The Brahminical forces are already on the retreat. On November 4, at the Ramlila grounds in Delhi, some one lakh Dalits converted to Buddhism at a function organised by a government officer called Ram Raj who has now changed his name to Udit Raj. Hundreds of Dalits had their heads shaved by Buddhist priests. For them who cannot get a shave even by a village barber, this was a moment of liberation. For them who had forsaken the prison of caste and had chosen the path shown by Ambedkar, Vedic knowledge is irrelevant. After all Ambedkar had asked his followers to discard the Vedas.

The Dalits are writing their own history. Thousands more would have taken part in the rally on November 4, but the Delhi police obstructed their path. The movement is bound to expand and Hindutva will not be able to stop it.

Dr Abdullah Abdullah has been the true voice of the Northern Alliance since the group took up cudgels against the Taliban. For five long years the Alliance had been losing battle after battle and the life was tough, unsettled for him. A professional medical man, a trained doctor, Abdullah had become a solider too and, at the same time, nursed the wounded and remained a unifying figure among the ethnic minority that constitute the Alliance. He articulated to the world, in fluent English with perfect accent, the Alliance’s views, which were initially faintly heard but in the aftermath of attack on the USA made banner headlines. Even in difficult times, Dr Abdullah could well be described as a “dapper man”. Dressed in pressed slacks and a jacket, having neatly trimmed beard and mustache, he could distinguish himself in a gathering of diplomats.

Last week, Dr Abdullah paid his first visit to Delhi as Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister designate but it was, as a matter of fact, a family reunion. His wife and three children — the youngest one, a two-year old daughter — have been living in the safe environs of Delhi as he faced danger after danger in Afghanistan. It was indeed an emotional moment for Dr. Abdullah as his brother-in-law, Kaihan, greeted him at the door step. Living in Delhi for the last three years, Kaihan is only 27 and, obviously, looked after the family. Dr.Abdullah’s wife and children may accompany him to Kabul to begin a new life while the brother-in-law will follow them shortly. They are all too excited to return to their country.

Dr. Abdullah had teamed up with commander Ahmad Shah Masood in 1985 to throw out Soviet forces from Afghanistan and since then they had together seen many right and bleak moments but it was mostly darkness after the Taliban captured Kabul and set up their oppressive regime. It was a dreadful day for
Dr. Abdullah on September 9; Masood was assassinated by two of Osama’s men posing as TV crew. That was two days before the World Trade Towers and Pentagon were attacked by terrorists owing allegiance to bin Laden. Both he and the lion of Panjshir valley had become close friends and loss of Masood at this crucial moment was a big set back to the Alliance. Initially, commander Masood had assigned him to head a medical clinic in the Panjshir valley but later the medical doctor himself took to arms. Abdullah says: “from the very first time I met Commander Masood, he treated me differently. I became his aide and my duties gradually became political in nature”. He has now vowed to carry forward Masood’s legacy and says;”he was a true leader for this country and our people. We could see our hopes and in his vision and his way of life”. Although his personal security is not a major concern to Abdullah, the Northern Alliance has assigned bodyguards to him since the assassination of Masood.

Come 1992 and Mujahedeen defeated the Soviet Union and seized control of the government in Kabul. Abdullah followed Masood in the Defence Ministry. By 1996 the Taliban completely took over of Kabul and drove Masood and his followers to the valley. Abdullah too went to Panjshir and became the spokesman of the Northern Alliance. He was named in 1997 deputy foreign minister and by 1999 the foreign minister. Now that the world’s attention is focused on the interim government, Abdullah is the most visible face of the new dispensation. Ethnically, Dr Abdullah straddles Afghanistan’s biggest divide — his mother is a Pushtoon from Kandahar and his father a pure Tajik from the Pajshir. Trained as a physician, he is modern, outward looking and appreciative of western technologies and values. Roughly, he is of the same age — mid forties — as Hamid Karzai, the Prime Minister designate of the new Afghan government. Both abhor bigotry which has haunted the previous generation of Afghan leaders. Both represent a triumphant of young over an older generation of embittered warlords. According to observers, both have taken a huge gamble and risk their careers and, even their lives, on the success of the interim government.

Dr Abdullah has challenged and defeated Rabbani and muzzled some of the bigoted Tajik old guard, agreeing to power-sharing and foreign peace keeping. Karzai, on his part, has taken even a bigger risk since he lends credibility to a government where he is the only Pushtoon. They have been given just two years time to prepare the people for a country-wide election. The future of Afghanistan depends on how they

develop a working relationship that transcends the ethnicity and partisanship.

The camaraderie and unity shown by the members of various political parties on the day the terrorists attacked Parliament was shortlived. Soon after the attack, word spread that the passage of the controversial law on prevention of terrorism was only a formality. There was also talk that the opposition demand for the resignation of Defence Minister George Fernandes would take a back seat and the remaining session of Parliament would go on unhindered. The optimists were far away from truth.

Soon after the attack, major opposition parties held strategy sessions to discuss how they could ensure that the ruling side did not escape from the corner they had been pushed into during the last week. Congress leader Kamal Nath was the first opposition leader to give an indication of the things to come in the next few days. He did not mince words in holding the Government responsible for the security breach in Parliament. His party also met in the evening to decide that their opposition to POTO stands.

The Samajwadi Party, which is a key player in the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh elections, was formulating a strategy to make political capital out of the incidents. All this in less than 24 hours after the Indian Parliament had come under attack. Politicians will after all remain politicians.

No dividing lines

Well,
politicians have no dividing lines. The ruling party members too saw an opportunity to make political capital out of the terrorist attacks on December 13. The BJP members demanded that the Government retaliate by striking at terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. This, they felt, would keep them in good stead when they face assembly elections in the next few months.

A senior BJP functionary admitted that the demand for such an action was spontaneous and it was not the considered view of the Government. Party members personally feel that the ruling NDA alliance is too soft. “We can only attack the opposition”, the functionary remarked sarcastically.

Hopeful Mamata

Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee is hopeful that her long wait for a Cabinet berth at the Centre is coming to an end. Her party sources confide that didi has indicated she might be back in the Railway ministry by the end of this month and the NDA Convenor George Fernandes is working towards that. She has also won the favour of the Vajpayee Government by actively supporting POTO. Since her return to NDA, Mamata Banerjee is keen to rejoin the Cabinet as that is the only way she can keep her frustrated flock together.

Mamata’s return to the NDA could also alter opposition equations in West Bengal. For one, senior dissident Trinamool Congress leader Ajit Panja is understood to be exploring rejoining the Congress. He is mending his fences with the Congress. His one-time arch rival and Congress leader Soumen Mitra, who is convalescing in a Delhi hospital, has been surprised to find Panja among his regular visitors.

False alarm

The terrorist attack inside Parliament complex had its hilarious moments. Soon after bullet shots were heard, the security personnel inside the sprawling circular building ushered in all the people standing in corridors to rush to the nearest room possible. The scribes inside the building were no exception and they were asked to lock themselves inside the press room. As if the noise of bullets was not enough, a concerned security official informed the scribes that one of the terrorists had probably got inside the building and nobody should take any chances.

However, when scribes in one of the rooms discovered that their door did not have a lock they decided to physically block it. Amidst all this tension the scribes suddenly heard someone banging furiously at the door. After a few moments of chilling tension someone finally decided to take a peep on what was going on. It was found that another scribe who was left out was trying to get in. Everybody had a good laugh after that.

Busy cop

Super cop of yesteryears K.P.S. Gill is still a much sought after man in times of crisis. The only difference is that instead of shooting from his hip he shoots from the mouth. On the day the terrorist attack took place inside Parliament complex, Gill was busy attending a school function extolling the virtues of encouraging all round development of students.

Suddenly he received a call in his mobile phone and was seen leaving the function abruptly. It was later found out that he had dashed off to a studio of a television channel and was giving expert comments on the incident of the day.

Blackwill’s gesture

The Lok Sabha had an unusual participant from the gallery on Friday. US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill was apparently overwhelmed when the MPs paid tributes to the cops who had laid down their lives protecting the heart of Indian democracy. While the members were thumping the desks, Blackwill was seen applauding the gesture.

Army’s hospitality

The Indian Army is known for its hospitality. Well not always. Perhaps drawing inspiration from Defence Minister George Fernandes who maintains a frugal lifestyle, the Army too seems to be cutting costs. Several scribes who were taken by the Indian Army to attend the passing out parade of the Indian Military Academy at Dehradun realised enroute that there was a limit on hospitality. While ordering food at a plush fast food joint, the scribes were politely told to limit their bill to Rs 70 as that was the amount sanctioned for them.

Making up

Rotarians faced some embarrassing moments for running behind time at an award presentation function at Ashoka Hotel here. Before making the opening remarks, Rotary International President and US based trial lawyer Richard D. King looked at his watch and exclaimed, “I have a note here which says that I have to finish my speech by eight minutes to six. It is already six. I think, I will condense the speech to get us back on track”.

Acknowledgement

Defence Minister George Fernandes who was subject to a volley of questions by several scribes at a press conference had this observation to make. “This is worse than Parliament”, he observed.

There is apparent tension in the air after the attack in Parliament House complex. It took a while for Delhiites to absorb the shock. Though security has been tightened at all the key areas, unease is definitely
there. Wherever one goes, there is talk of security bandobast rather the initial lack of it, on POTO, and its impact on UP polls.

At the farewell dinner hosted by Mr Ashwani Kumar, senior advocate, Supreme Court, in honour of the former Chief Justice of India, A.S.Anand, talks
centered around this incident. Guests stressed that if the government was awareof the possibility of an attack by Al Qaida or other group, why wasn't security tightened around Parliament?

Another guest maintained that it was time for introspection, in the sense VIPs ought to move around without those red lights and other frills atop their vehicles and should get used to their cars being stopped at checkposts. Several others argued for and against POTO, little knowing that POTO is already in operation. Kuldip Nayar told me that during the entire shoot out, he was inside Parliament and though the MPs were calm, soon after the incident, he was asked by a member if he was still against POTO. “Now there will be lobbying for POTO, but then let's not overlook the fact that this incident took place whilst POTO has been there...it has been in operation for the past one month. The situation got controlled and did not turn disastrous, only because of the courage shown by the security personnel, especially Parliament's security staff”.

As a mark of respect for those security personnel who gave up their lives on Thursday, President K.R.Narayanan cancelled the Iftaar due on December 14 at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. With a day left for this month of
Ramadan to end, there are no further Iftaars lined up.

Refugee
crisis

The refugee crisis and freedom from hatred and violence can be linked in today's political scenario. In this column, I had mentioned earlier that we have about 12,000 Afghans living in New Delhi alone and incidents like the shocking attack on Parliament puts them in a tight position. December 14 was UN's Day for Refugees. It was time to highlight the insecurities and various other problems the refugees face in the country. I really don't know whether such meets really affect our slanted thinking. And though New Delhi houses thousands of those erstwhile refugees who were affected by Partition, they seem insensitive to the Afghan refugees living in their midst. Some of these refugees complain of being taunted and called “Osama's children”, but they have to take it in their stride, for there isn't any option for them but to stay here, as the situation is far from normal in Afghanistan. Some of these refugees confirm what Prof Noam Chomsky had earlier said that the Northern
Alliance would be in no position to provide stability, “maybe there will be a facade of it, as there is so much of money and so many vested interests involved”.

I wouldn't like to sound as though I am on some preaching mission, but there seems no other ready solution to this present situation of distrust except to take to a non-violent approach to life. Jain Vishwa Bharati Institute has begun the Anekanta series — monthly lectures on how to control mind and the very thinking process. On December 16, Badrinath Chaturvedi, former bureaucrat and now full-time writer, will speak at the IIC on ‘Freedom from hatred and violence’. In the times we are living in, it is important to know that one can live in a state of freedom from hatred and violence.

Why can't those frustrated be taught to vent out their anger in a non-violent way? Sudhamahi Regunathan, Vice-Chancellor of this university, says she is going about rather systematically in trying to get more and more people see the merits in the philosophy of non-violence.

Each time I talk and interact with her, I wish politicians at the Centre involved apolitical seculars like her to reach out to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The average Kashmiri has made it clear that he is ready for a dialogue but only with apoliticals of the country. Why doesn't the Centre involve apoliticals like Rajmohan Gandhi, Nirmala Deshpande, Justice Tarkunde, Kuldip Nayar, Justice Rajinder Sacchar?

Some
distractions

Coming up is the India-UK Science Festival. To be inaugurated on January 7 in New Delhi, it will travel to 11 cities of the country. The first week of February will see the start of the fortnight-long World Book Fair. Details in next week's column.